I think the relevance is that a man died in a accident with a complex and autonomous machine (properly called "robots" since they exist in factories, like it or not), and that's not so easy in this case to predict everything that can go wrong, like, say "don't put your hand inside the press". Also, it's not so easy to say if the safety considerations are in charge of the user, or the machine's designer, and in what percentage.
It's a simple, if tragic, industrial accident
Nobody said the opposite.
FUD about completely fictional (and in this case entirely absent) AIs
Nobody ever talked about AIs behind that.
pandering to the fears of people who are afraid they will 'take over'.
Only valid for stupid people.
This it perhaps the first severe accident of this kind in a western factory, and is sparkling debate about who is responsible for the accident, the man who was servicing the robot beyond its protection cage, or the robot's hardware/software developers who didn't put enough safety checks. Will this distinction be more and more important in the future, when robots will be more widespread?
This is the usual cheap stab against RMS's stance
One could argue that this is the usual cheap stab of RMS against hardware manufacturer. Hardware firmware is meant to be embedded in a piece of hardware, think microcontrollers that power everything today, and 99% of times you don't even know there are so many of them in a device.
Or are they afraid that a cheap manufacturer could use their precious drivers with a cheap, compatible card? But if their hardware is better than the cheaper ones, what's the point?